H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***

[Guest Alison82]

thats ok once they start charging for banking i will just change it all over to my pre-paid credit card. 4.95 a month of charges for any amount of transactions.

 

won't need to have a bank then.

 

banks with no money in them don't work.

 

What do you mean?

[giantsf49er]

You can have your wages paid onto a prepaid Mastercard.

 

These cards have a fee of £4.95 per month or £1 per transaction.

 

They arent a credit card so there is no facility to borrow money, but they do carry the Mastercard logo so are acceptable pretty much everywhere (though car hire and hotel deposit facilities have to be enabled by the card issuer at their discretion).

 

I got one recently as my Solo card was no good for certain transactions but I couldnt get a standard credit card.

[vogelrok]

if the banks decide to charge a monthly fee so no longer free banking.

i will just close my account which will be about £50k real soon when i sell my home.

 

and put it all on my pre-paid credit car. it works like a bank there are no interest charges to be paid, just a one of monthly fee of £4.95 for using the service.

 

ok the money is still going to a finacial company. but it wont be the bank that ripped me off with its unlawful bank charges. they wont get zip.

 

plus no credit checks anyone can have one of the pre-paid credit cards. as long as you meet the requiremnets of proving you are who you say you are.

 

or just keep my money in my pocket and forget banks for ever more.

[jcaps]

The UK's biggest banks have lost a test case about overdraft charges.

A judge has decided that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) can apply consumer contract regulations to decide if bank overdraft charges are fair or not.

But Mr Justice Andrew Smith said the judgement did not necessarily mean the charges are unfair.

Further hearings are expected which may delay the cases of thousands of claimants trying to reclaim their charges arguing they are too high.

Cases currently on hold in the county courts will stay on hold until 22 May, by which date the banks must decide whether they are going to appeal against the ruling.

READ THE FINDINGS

 

 

Bank charges judgement [536KB]

 

Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader

Download the reader here

 

 

Doug Taylor, personal finance campaigns manager at Which?, said: "The banks should do the right thing now and concede defeat, agree with the OFT what constitutes a fair unauthorised overdraft fee and refund their customers as soon as possible."

But the judge also decided against the OFT, saying that the banks' terms and conditions were plain and intelligible. This judgement continues the process which could eventually allow the OFT to decide what a fair charge would be for unauthorised overdrafts.

[UK26]

Yeap just seen it on SKy News about the OFT won the case..

 

Just phoned up the solicitor of the bank that i have a claim againts and asked what they are doing.

 

 

They said nothing until the waver has been removed...

 

so still no money coming my way

[UK26]

Oh you use CashPlus do you?

 

they are good ant they, ive used them now over a year. you know where you stand. £4.95 per month and no other fees.

 

 

if the banks decide to charge a monthly fee so

 

and put it all on my pre-paid credit car. it works like a bank there are no interest charges to be paid, just a one of monthly fee of £4.95 for using the service.

 

ok the money is still going to a finacial company. but it wont be the bank that ripped me off with its unlawful bank charges. they wont get zip.

 

plus no credit checks anyone can have one of the pre-paid credit cards. as long as you meet the requiremnets of proving you are who you say you are.

 

or just keep my money in my pocket and forget banks for ever more.

[giantsf49er]

if the banks decide to charge a monthly fee so no longer free banking.

i will just close my account which will be about £50k real soon when i sell my home.

 

and put it all on my pre-paid credit car. it works like a bank there are no interest charges to be paid, just a one of monthly fee of £4.95 for using the service.

 

ok the money is still going to a finacial company. but it wont be the bank that ripped me off with its unlawful bank charges. they wont get zip.

 

plus no credit checks anyone can have one of the pre-paid credit cards. as long as you meet the requiremnets of proving you are who you say you are.

 

or just keep my money in my pocket and forget banks for ever more.

 

You do know that they are run by banks dont you?

[jclancy]

Before we all get carried away, there are some nasties in this judgment - I've only skim read it, but while we might be happy that the UCTRR are to be applied to bank charges, at 323 he says:

 

'I therefore conclude that none of these provisions which the OFT has identified means that the customer is under a contractual commitment such that Relevant Charges could be a penalty for breach of the commitment, and so unenforceable at common law.' (emphasis mine)

 

Now that reads to me that anyone claiming that bank charges are penalties are stuffed by the judgement, and we can now only rely on the fact that the charges are unfair.

 

Have I got this wrong? Penalties, it would appear, they are not!? Now that's a huge reversal for us.

 

The devil's in the detail!

[vogelrok]

You do know that they are run by banks dont you?

 

yer i do understand they are still run by a bank. but there are no hidden charges at all. i can't go overdrawn at all it is a safer way to bank for me.

 

how will this outcome affect mortgage late peyment charges. as have a good few of them to get back. but from what i remember people was getting charged the solicitors fees for doing this. just spoke to mortgage company barclays. we haven't heard the result yet. hahahah we all know they found out before it was made public lol. even know they still lie

[HSBCrusher]

Before we all get carried away, there are some nasties in this judgment - I've only skim read it, but while we might be happy that the UCTRR are to be applied to bank charges, at 323 he says:

 

'I therefore conclude that none of these provisions which the OFT has identified means that the customer is under a contractual commitment such that Relevant Charges could be a penalty for breach of the commitment, and so unenforceable at common law.' (emphasis mine)

 

Now that reads to me that anyone claiming that bank charges are penalties are stuffed by the judgement, and we can now only rely on the fact that the charges are unfair.

 

Have I got this wrong? Penalties, it would appear, they are not!? Now that's a huge reversal for us.

 

The devil's in the detail!

indeed, it would appear that this is not a good result for business claims.

 

also, we are in for a bit of a delay...

 

Cases currently on hold in the county courts will stay on hold until 22 May, by which date the banks must decide whether they are going to appeal against the ruling.

(bbc)

[tiglet]

Pour quoi?

[HSBCrusher]

Pour quoi?

the Judge has agreed that the charges do come under UCTRR, but they are not penalties. Business claims do not come under UCTRR.

[Thailand]

Angie Knight on BBC news

[Thailand]

I preferred this one to Angie's, passionate as ever.

 

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks lose overdraft case

[JonCris]

People need to be a little circumspect with regards to this morning's announcement. This judgement is merely about whether the banks charging T&C's can be assessed under the fairness regulations or not.

 

If the judgement says they can be assessed under the regulations, the banks may appeal against this, and we're into another round of court cases. Assuming these still go against the banks, only then can the OFT assess the charges for fairness. And this assessment will then have to form part of another legal case (more time, potential appeals, etc).

 

The point I'm trying to make is that this morning's announcement, at the most, moves things on a step. It doesn't actually resolve anything finally.

 

Sorry to put a downer on things, but I think people (including a certain M Lewis ) need to manage their expectations a little.

 

Having just finished reading the Judgment Bernard I'm afraid your right Bernard:(

[MEOB]

I may have this wrong, but didn't the judge conclude that there was no breach of contract within the current T&C's only?

 

Some of the older T&C's are very explicit about this being a breach of contract.

[photoman]

the Judge has agreed that the charges do come under UCTRR, but they are not penalties. Business claims do not come under UCTRR.

 

Crusher,

 

Yes I too was a bit surprised at the following statement:

 

"As for the position at common law, I accept the Banks’ submission that none of the terms which I have considered (the terms now generally used by the Banks for personal current accounts other than basic accounts and also certain of the terms used until recently by Clydesdale and RBSG) could be unenforceable on the grounds that they are penal (paragraph 323 above)."

 

However, I do not see this as being the end for Business claims at Common law (or indeed those with personal accounts set up pre UTCR99):

 

Firstly, this is only the judges opinion, and I do not believe it sets any precedent. I think such issues would still need to be decided separately.

Secondly, this view only refers to "personal" accounts, and does not cite anything regards other type of (such as Business) accounts.

Thirdly apart from some Clydesdale and RBSG terms, this view is only taken with regards current terms (and even then only personal account terms), and ignores historical terms.

Lastly, it is also somewhat curios that during the period of the stays many Business claimants had stays lifted, due to their contention that their claims were not subject to the outcome of this case, and were instead based upon common law. In most circumstances they then quite quickly received offers and full refunds (often for very large sums).

This would all indicate that the Banks are really not very confident about winning a case brought upon the grounds of common law, particularly one with regards historical terms.

This is why they they all so swiftly changed their T&C's prior to having them subjected to the scrutiny of this case.

 

PM

[tomterm8]

I am not entirely happy with this result, even though it introduces a few new legal arguments for the case 1st credit allege they are going to bring against me:)

 

I really do not like the way the verdict finds that under the current system these current contract terms are incapable of being penalty charges.

 

There are also other judgements, in terms of order of payment uncertainties and similar areas where the verdict works against our interest, IMHO.

 

 

Hm... there is a legal bombshell in the judgement, if I read it right, the basis that late payment charges etc are not penalties, is that there is no legal commitment to pay on time under the current contracts:

 

323. I therefore conclude that none of these provisions which the OFT has identified means that the customer is under a contractual commitment such that Relevant Charges could be a penalty for breach of the commitment, and so unenforceable at common law. I have reached this conclusion without resort to Regulation 7(2) of the 1999 Regulations. However, if there were doubt about the meaning of these provisions, they would be given the interpretation most favourable to the consumer. This would mean that they would be construed so as to avoid customers being under any contractual commitment. ....

[JonCris]

Read it a bit more............there are so many gaping holes as yet to be resolved that I think it's been a complete waste of tax payers money Contrary to what’s being claimed nothing is resolved..........not even the fairness of charges.........Only that the OFT do have certain powers

Also as this Judgment goes against well established law by claiming that the charges are not considered a penalty doesn't that mean such a finding by this court can be rejected by the consumer as not setting a firm precedent?

[JonCris]

Photoman It would appear you beat me to it;) see above

[tomterm8]

No idea, JonCris, but there are now more holes in banking law than a swiss cheese, IMHO.

[JonCris]

Also Lloyds TSB could be in the doo doo as to their T's Cs' as could the remainder of the banks in respect of their basic accounts. In otherwords it would appear that as has been argued before if an account has no O/D facility allowed for in it's T's & C's then the bank cannot force you into O/D by applying charges which exceed the credit balance already in the account.

 

They can reject payment but it would appear they may not be able to charge you

 

Read the following para:

 

449. As for the position at common law, I accept the Banks’ submission that none of the terms which I have considered (the terms now generally used by the Banks for personal current accounts other than basic accounts and also certain of the terms used until recently by Clydesdale and RBSG) could be unenforceable on the grounds that they are penal (paragraph 323 above).

[tumble]

Was this test case purely focused on personal accounts ?

 

Tumble

[Bookworm]

Yes.

[photoman]

Was this test case purely focused on personal accounts ?

 

Tumble

 

Yes, but even then at this stage it was only concerned with whether or not the terms could be liable to be subjected to scrutiny under the UTCCR99.

 

I think I agree with jonchris here, in that so far this has been a monumental waste of time and money.

 

Before the case even began It was blatently obvious that the terms should be subject to the UTCCR (err... duh......they're terms in a consumer contract, that's the whole point of the UTCCR). Any decision otherwise would have simply been to say that the very reason for existence of the UTTCR was pointless.

 

It's all a bit like saying " before we decide what colour this piece of paper is, lets first decide if it is a colour"